Larry Blanchard (in ) said:

| On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:40:51 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
|
||
|| Why wouldn't she like Kansas? Is she agoraphobic? (Seems unlikely.)
|
| Three words were left out - "board of education" :-).

Of course! How could I have overlooked that? :-))

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

in 1249871 20051119 145005 Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:08:38 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

Yes, I didn't expect that a subject would understand. Guns aren't just
to deter individual criminal acts, they also deter governmental criminal
acts. Don't worry though, we'll bail you out yet again, next time.

And be 3-4 years late again, no doubt!

in 1249902 20051119 162352 (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Martin wrote:
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government is
willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if that
changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?

More to the point: what *could* you do?

And you really think guns would make a difference?

Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?
Did the Romanians, the Czechs etc?

Attempts to justify everyone having a gun are pretty pathetic.

in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?

Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".

That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
You're getting desperate!

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1249902 20051119 162352 (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Martin
wrote:
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government
is
willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if
that
changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?

More to the point: what *could* you do?

And you really think guns would make a difference?

Yes.

Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?

No, they didn't need them. They only did that after they were allowed to.

Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 8:46am (EST+5) (Bob*Martin)
burbled:
More to the point: what *could* you do?
And you really think guns would make a difference? snip
Attempts to justify everyone having a gun are pretty pathetic.

I read about home invasions, and hear about them on the news. And,
I read, and hear, people saying that if it happens to you, don't
resist, and you won't be harmed. But, I also read, and hear, about so
many of those same home invasions resulting in unarmed people, not
resisting, and being killed anyway by the people invading their homes.
No witnesses you see. So, if those homeowners had a weapon in the
house, thay might at least stand a chance of getting out of it alive.
Sure as Hell beats getting killed by some thug just because he wants to
rob you.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 8:48am (EST+5) (Bob*Martin)
doth burble:
That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens a thousand
times more in the US than in Britain. You're getting desperate!

Where'd you come up with that figure? Anything to back it up?

"Ordinary" armed robbery? In Britain? with their strict gon
control laws?



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

In article , Bob Martin wrote:
in 1249902 20051119 162352 (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Martin
wrote:
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz wrote:
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.

It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?

I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.

The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government is
willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if that
changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?

More to the point: what *could* you do?

And you really think guns would make a difference?

They sure made a hell of a difference for us in 1776.

Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?

At the point that the wall came down, the government had abandoned even the
pretense of forcefully suppressing dissent. Prior to that, when the government
*was* still doing so, the subjects were of course unable to do anything about
it, being disarmed.

Did the Romanians, the Czechs etc?

See above.


Attempts to justify everyone having a gun are pretty pathetic.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Bob Martin wrote:
in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?

Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".

That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
You're getting desperate!

You missed the point rather badly -- the point being that it happened
anyway, despite the strict gun control laws that are supposed to make it
impossible.

I've always been baffled by the naivete and/or gullibility of those who
believe that gun control laws have *any* affect on the behavior of criminals,
who are, by definition, people who _don't_obey_laws_anyway_.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bob Martin wrote:
...
And you really think guns would make a difference?

They sure made a hell of a difference for us in 1776.

Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?

At the point that the wall came down, the government had abandoned even the
pretense of forcefully suppressing dissent. Prior to that, when the government
*was* still doing so, the subjects were of course unable to do anything about
it, being disarmed.


Uh, back when the "Evil Empire" was still intact it was pointed out
many
times that Soviet Citizens were allowed to own rifles and shotguns,
ostensibly for hunting. I dunno if there was a limit on ammunition and
I suppose that handguns were restricted, but they were not 'disarmed'.

Dunno about East Germany.

Oh, and has been also noted, AK-47s or (more likely) the Chinese
knock-offs
were quite popular and legal among Iraqi civilians under Saddam
Hussein.

I'll agree that an armed populace can be quite helpful as far as
overthrowing
a dictator, or preventing an overthrow of a legitimate government, but
it
is plainly not sufficient.

--

FF

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:48:58 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin quickly quoth:

in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?

Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".

That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
You're getting desperate!

There are "a thousand times" more people here, Bob. UK crime rates
are actually higher than the US.

Google it. The facts are there. We just went through this a couple
months ago either here on on rec.crafts.metalworking. DAGS on that.


-----------------------------------------------------------
-- This post conscientiously crafted from 100% Recycled Pixels --
http://diversify.com Websites: PHP Programming, MySQL databases
================================================== ================

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:05:43 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:


The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only
criminals have guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing? The dangerous people have weapons,
and their victims are unable to resist?

I don't see that as an acceptable solution. I want my _criminals_ to be
in danger, not the good citizens.

Dammit Dave, it's no fun when I keep agreeing with you :-).

But I bet there's a lot of shotguns in Britain :-).

in 1250146 20051120 170155 Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:48:58 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin quickly quoth:

in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?

Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".

That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
You're getting desperate!

There are "a thousand times" more people here, Bob. UK crime rates
are actually higher than the US.

Google it. The facts are there. We just went through this a couple
months ago either here on on rec.crafts.metalworking. DAGS on that.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/global/

This says that gun-related deaths in the USA were 300 times the number in Britain,
but the US population is only 4-5 times that of the UK. I admit these are pretty old
figures, but a gun killing still makes national headlines here.
Another poster here talked about Britain being "disarmed" - sorry but that is nonsense.
Hand guns were banned in a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane school killings,
but the only people affected were legitimate members of pistol-shooting clubs.
The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:


The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing? The dangerous people have weapons,
and their victims are unable to resist?

I don't see that as an acceptable solution. I want my _criminals_ to be
in danger, not the good citizens.

in 1250411 20051121 160543 Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:


The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing?

Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1250411 20051121 160543 Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:


The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing?

Yes I do.

You would rather than an armed criminal be safe, and that a homeowner be
in danger?

Whose side are you on, Bob?

If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.


Yes, yes, we've heard that argument here too. When Florida was (one
of?) the first state to pass laws where law-abiding citizens could carry
concealed weapons, the hue and cry was mighty, about how "blood will run
in the streets", "the Gunshine State" and all that. Not surprisingly
(to me), when non-criminals were allowed to arm themselves, the
criminals found other things to do. Violent crime went down in
Florida, just as it has gone down in _every other state_ with CCW laws.

Oh - and I've driven in England. I found the drivers to be pretty good,
especially in the "be in the proper lane on the motorway, depending on
your speed". I think that maybe your assumption that your contrymen
can't be trusted with deadly force, is unfair. A car, after all, is
deadly force. If they're not ramming each other on the M25, they
probably wouldn't be shooting each other, either.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin quickly quoth:

There are "a thousand times" more people here, Bob. UK crime rates
are actually higher than the US.

Google it. The facts are there. We just went through this a couple
months ago either here on on rec.crafts.metalworking. DAGS on that.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/global/

This says that gun-related deaths in the USA were 300 times the number in Britain,
but the US population is only 4-5 times that of the UK. I admit these are pretty old
figures, but a gun killing still makes national headlines here.

According to the latest CIA factbook, we have 296 million people and
you have 60. Y'know, guns would help your population control. bseg


Another poster here talked about Britain being "disarmed" - sorry but that is nonsense.
Hand guns were banned in a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane school killings,
but the only people affected were legitimate members of pistol-shooting clubs.

Do a google (or other) search for "defensive handgun use". It may well
surprise you. There are an estimated 2 million DHUs (prevented crimes)
in the USA annually, most without firing a shot.


The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

Perhaps, but due to the bans, your people can't purchase guns for
protection and your police are totally inept (as are ours) at
controlling criminals--thanks in part to overpaid lawyers.

You still didn't address my crime rate statistics. BTW, our death by
firearm statistics are (purposely?) overblown because suicides are
included in that figure.



--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:

....
If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.

....

... I've driven in England. I found the drivers to be pretty good,
especially in the "be in the proper lane on the motorway, depending on
your speed". ...

Me too...especially as compared to...oh, say Hotlanta as only one
example...

Bob Martin wrote:
The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing?


Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.

No it wouldn't, stop beliving those who wish to control you (and me) and
to do so need you unable to resist whatever they foist upon you.

Niel, UK.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:05:43 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:


The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only
criminals have guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing? The dangerous people have weapons,
and their victims are unable to resist?

I don't see that as an acceptable solution. I want my _criminals_ to be
in danger, not the good citizens.


Dammit Dave, it's no fun when I keep agreeing with you :-).

But I bet there's a lot of shotguns in Britain :-).

no where near as many as there once were

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin quickly quoth:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:

The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing?

Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.

What you fail to recognize is that once you own a gun and have learned
to shoot and maintain it, you also have gained a hell of lot more
respect for them. Again, look at the stats. Gun owners as a group,
especially those with concealed weapons permits, are the sanest,
most law-abiding folks you'll ever meet.

It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.

If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
ask.

--
************************************************** *********
"Boy, I feel safer now that Martha Stewart is behind bars!
O.J. is walking around free, Osama Bin Laden too, but they
take the one woman in America willing to cook and clean
and work in the yard and haul her ass to jail."
--Tim Allen
************************************************** *********

Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
many people got the impression that that was some kind of first. Near as I
know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.
I know from first hand experience that carry licenses have always been
available in Washington. I've had a CCW for 24 years. I've never had a need
to use it nor has anyone I know. It would seem that the people with the CCW
are less likely to get into a bad situation in the first place. I think this
is do to those individuals being more aware of their surroundings and
knowing where not to be.


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Yes, yes, we've heard that argument here too. When Florida was (one
of?) the first state to pass laws where law-abiding citizens could carry
concealed weapons, the hue and cry was mighty, about how "blood will run
in the streets", "the Gunshine State" and all that. Not surprisingly
(to me), when non-criminals were allowed to arm themselves, the
criminals found other things to do. Violent crime went down in
Florida, just as it has gone down in _every other state_ with CCW laws.

in 1250618 20051122 023959 Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin quickly quoth:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:

The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.

And, you see that as a _good_ thing?

Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.

What you fail to recognize is that once you own a gun and have learned
to shoot and maintain it, you also have gained a hell of lot more
respect for them. Again, look at the stats. Gun owners as a group,
especially those with concealed weapons permits, are the sanest,
most law-abiding folks you'll ever meet.

It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.

If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
ask.

Please don't be so condescending. I served four years in the RAF and was
trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.

In article , Bob Martin
wrote:

I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.

That explains why they stay in Britain, where guns are freely available
to criminals, but forbidden to the law-abiding.

And it also explains why the Brits who disagree are emigrating.

Kevin

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want
to live in
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with
me.

But the fact is that you are living in a country where guns are easily
available if not freely available. In Britain and Canada, illegal handguns
can be obtained for relatively small sums of money. In Toronto, Canada this
year, we've had more gun violence than ever before. Getting a permit to own
a handgun is pretty difficult here, but that hasn't stopped the escalation
of shootings. I think most Canadians believe that guns are finding their way
up here from the US.

In article , Bob Martin wrote:

Please don't be so condescending. I served four years in the RAF and was
trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to
live in a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.

Then I guess you should leave Britain. Fact is, where you live, guns are
readily available to the criminal element. Here in the US, they're readily
available to everyone.

I like our way better.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article t, "CW" wrote:
Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
many people got the impression that that was some kind of first.

It was, in a way: states that had previously prohibited concealed-carry began
to allow it.

Near as I
know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.

Yep. But a number of states that had (a long time ago) permitted
concealed-carry have since banned it. Florida is AFAIK the first to undo the
ban.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Then I guess you should leave Britain. Fact is, where you live, guns are
readily available to the criminal element. Here in the US, they're readily
available to everyone.

I like our way better.

I can't agree with you. The US and Canada are close enough in lifestyles
that you can compare. Your readily available guns compared to our not as
readily available guns, the percentage of your crime and murder rates with a
gun being involved are much higher than what we have here in Canada.

How do you rationalize that your way is better?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:31:26 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1250618 20051122 023959 Larry Jaques wrote:

It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.

Please don't be so condescending.

Larry is hardly being condescending.

I served four years in the RAF and was
trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.

And yet, you prefer to have criminals armed while good people are not.
Very strange.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:27:59 GMT, CW wrote:
Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
many people got the impression that that was some kind of first. Near as I
know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.

It was one of the first to go from oppressive to sane. As you say,
others never went to "oppressive" in the first place.

How much gun violence is there in Alaska?

I know from first hand experience that carry licenses have always been
available in Washington. I've had a CCW for 24 years. I've never had a need
to use it nor has anyone I know. It would seem that the people with the CCW
are less likely to get into a bad situation in the first place. I think this
is do to those individuals being more aware of their surroundings and
knowing where not to be.

It's a self-selecting population, to be sure, who becomes CCW certified.
I see it as little different from learning CPR, or how to run an
automatic defib - the few people who do, benefit all those who don't.
Odds are that if you do need someone with the appropriate training, they
might be around, which is better than knowing that they won't, or can't.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:31:26 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin quickly quoth:

in 1250618 20051122 023959 Larry Jaques wrote:

If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
ask.

Please don't be so condescending.

So sorry. I added that statement in case you -weren't- an anti-gun
nut.


I served four years in the RAF and was
trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.

OK, it's your decision. Enjoy the repercussions since you're living
with them!

--
************************************************** *********
"Boy, I feel safer now that Martha Stewart is behind bars!
O.J. is walking around free, Osama Bin Laden too, but they
take the one woman in America willing to cook and clean
and work in the yard and haul her ass to jail."
--Tim Allen
************************************************** *********

Doug Miller wrote:


Yep. But a number of states that had (a long time ago) permitted
concealed-carry have since banned it. Florida is AFAIK the first to undo the
ban.


I've had a New York State permit to carry concealed for over 25 years?

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Then I guess you should leave Britain. Fact is, where you live, guns are
readily available to the criminal element. Here in the US, they're readily
available to everyone.

I like our way better.

I can't agree with you. The US and Canada are close enough in lifestyles

Hellooooo.... I was comparing the US to the UK. But since you brought it up...

that you can compare. Your readily available guns compared to our not as
readily available guns, the percentage of your crime and murder rates with a
gun being involved are much higher than what we have here in Canada.

That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much lower
in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per *capita*
are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
Canada.

How do you rationalize that your way is better?

Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing crimes
than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "no(SPAM)vasys" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


Yep. But a number of states that had (a long time ago) permitted
concealed-carry have since banned it. Florida is AFAIK the first to undo the
ban.


I've had a New York State permit to carry concealed for over 25 years?

Did NY at one time ban CCW? Read what I wrote, please.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much
lower
in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per
*capita*
are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
Canada.

Absolute and complete garbage. Pull that one out of your ass Doug?

Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing
crimes
than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?

Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense that
the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much
lower
in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per
*capita*
are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
Canada.

Absolute and complete garbage. Pull that one out of your ass Doug?

Actually, it's true, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Guns per capita in Canada: 0.25
Guns per capita in the U.S.: 0.82
Firearms death rate per 100K population: 4.3 in Canada, 11.4 in the U.S.

Yes, folks, that's right: with 3.3 times as many firearms per capita as
Canada, the United States has only 2.7 times as many firearm *deaths* per
capita.

Other interesting statistics from that site:
27.3% of Canadian homicides were committed with firearms, versus 66% in the
United States -- but, on average, 25% of Canadians own firearms, versus 82% in
the United States. Clearly, of the two, _Canada_ is the one with a firearm
violence problem.

And even more interesting, nearly half (46%) of Canadian firearm homicides
were committed with handguns. I thought that Canadian law made handgun
ownership very difficult?

Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing
crimes
than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?

Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense that
the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.

And this is better exactly how?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:27 -0700, Charles Spitzer
wrote:

"Paul Brumman" wrote in message
...

We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property?

call your local police and ask them. we're not there.

That's strange advice. If an animal threatens my kids, legality and
whatever else doesn't enter into it. You stop the threat, period. It
keeps coming up here, but "The 3 S's" apply in this case - shoot,
shovel, and shutup. There can be no legality or subtle whatever going
on here, my kids outweigh the neighbor's dog, period.

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
threatening dog.

OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...

If he *did* cap the dog, it would make me very happy and I'd congratulate
him. But, in terms of aggravation and paperwork, he'd be better off calling
animal control and *telling* them he's just about mad enough to shoot a
habitual stray. That tends to motivate the dog non-catchers. If that doesn't
work, he should call the cops and repeat the threat. They cannot bother you
for simply saying you're going to do it. But, they may be personally
acquainted with the dog non-cathcer and be able to better motivate him to
get off his fat ass and enforce the dog laws.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
"hylourgos" wrote:

IMO, if you let it go at all (i.e., the situation didn't demand that
you rush to get your gun the very first incident), then maybe the
cooler thing to do is talk to the owner and let him know how you feel,
before you kill his pet.

I personally would fault no one for killing anything, man or beast, who
threatened his small children. But if you take a pass, then why not use
that moratorium to resolve the situation peacefully? And if the
neighbor won't cooperate, by all means include the police in the
dialogue: they're often helpful that way, and you've covered your legal
bases in doing so.

What I've not read in any reply, but may have missed, is the
recommendation for the OP to educate his children clearly and often
about how to treat and behave around dogs - be it the neighbor's
questionable mutt or the family Peekapoo.

True, but some dogs will attack when they see a motion they believe is
threatening, even from a distance where a child's activity is none of
anyone's business. Same as a cat that'll tear across a yard to chase down a
leaf blowing across the lawn because he likes the sound it makes. So,
educate the kids, but that only takes care of the dogs which are less
reprehensible than the nastiest ones. The spectrum is a short one.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
threatening dog.

OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I
have
no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic
and
that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...

I just can't see why there's even a question.

Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
to make sense...

It's likely that he'd be yelled at for even having the gun out in a typical
tightly arranged neighborhood.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer
wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
to make sense...

whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will
ensure
that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house, especially
if
the next house may only be 4' away like in some developments?

What does that have to do with the question of if it's legal to shoot a
dog that't threatening my kids? Obviously a negligently placed bullet
is a problem, but that's completely independant of the situation.

A question will provide your answer: Can you envision telling the cops a dog
was threatening your kids, but it was sitting nice & still so you could take
a shot that you knew wouldn't travel into a neighbor's window?